18th WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT RULES
2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in the details of their submission form. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
I think it is important for them to define the term derivative.
It is very clear that Rybka 1.0 uses Fruit ideas (I do not know how much is known about current Rybka versions). Does the use of these ideas make it (Rybka 1.0) a clone?
Consider that all chess programs use Alpha-Beta from John McCarthy's 1956 proposal. So under a loose definition, all programs are clones. So what *exactly* is a clone?
Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Graham Banks wrote:Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Good Call Graham
actually i am quite surprised by the voting..pretty close
i guess if this vote were held on one of the commercial sites the second choice would be far in the lead
if held in the OPEN forum the first option would be far in the lead
but here..on the CCC...we have a split decision
showing once again ..that the premiere place in the world for FAIR AND BALANCED CC information is the ...
Graham Banks wrote:Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Good Call Graham
actually i am quite surprised by the voting
pretty close
i would have thought the second option would be winning going away
i guess if this vote were held on one of the commercial sites the second one would be far in the lead
if held in the OPEN forum the first option would be in the lead
but here..on the CCC...we have a split decision
showing once again that the place for FAIR AND BALANCED CC information is the
CCC Regards
Steve
Somewhat Startled Regards
Steve
The poll questions are very bad, Steve. As a consequence, it is not clear what people have voted for.
My feeling is that, had a proper poll been offered, those with negative feelings about Rybka 4 would have been in the majority.
My own feelings are that there is strong enough evidence for a civil court to rule that Rybka 1 is a clone. If it is, then some of Rajlich's statements are less than totally truthful. As those statements have been made since Rybka 3 was released, then Rajlich's comments and values may be untrustworthy and the onus should therefore be on him to provide evidence from an impartial expert that Rybka 3 and 4 are clean. Until he does that, his programs should be banned.
Last edited by K I Hyams on Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Graham Banks wrote:Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Good Call Graham
actually i am quite surprised by the voting
pretty close
i would have thought the second option would be winning going away
i guess if this vote were held on one of the commercial sites the second one would be far in the lead
if held in the OPEN forum the first option would be in the lead
but here..on the CCC...we have a split decision
showing once again that the place for FAIR AND BALANCED CC information is the
CCC Regards
Steve
Somewhat Startled Regards
Steve
The poll questions are very bad indeed, Steve. As a consequence, it is not clear what people have voted for. I originally started a list containing the problems with the questions but it was getting too long and so I gave up.
My feeling is that, had a proper poll been offered, those with negative feelings about Rybka 4 would have been in the majority.
My own feelings are that there is strong enough evidence for a civil court to rule that Rybka 1 is a clone. If it is, then some of Rajlich's statements are less than totally truthful. As those statements have been made since Rybka 3 was released, then Rajlich's comments and values may be untrustworthy and the onus should therefore be on him to provide evidence from an impartial expert that Rybka 3 and 4 are clean. Until he does that, his programs should be banned.
Fruit was eventually released as an OPEN GPL by Fabien
R1 commercial was released as a commercial product and the GPL CLOSED
its possible that the emergence of IPPO is a form of protest of R1's closing the GPL and an effort to REOPEN the GPL( by those protesting its closing) given the likely Fruit connection
in effect bringing the code ..full circle back to an open GPL state
just one theory in many i guess
one thing i have always personally believed however is that the Great Derivatives Debate(GDB) should start at Fruit and carry to IPPO and family and not begin just at IPPO
i know many disagree
Graham Banks wrote:Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Good Call Graham
actually i am quite surprised by the voting
pretty close
i would have thought the second option would be winning going away
i guess if this vote were held on one of the commercial sites the second one would be far in the lead
if held in the OPEN forum the first option would be in the lead
but here..on the CCC...we have a split decision
showing once again that the place for FAIR AND BALANCED CC information is the
CCC Regards
Steve
Somewhat Startled Regards
Steve
The poll questions are very bad indeed, Steve. As a consequence, it is not clear what people have voted for. I originally started a list containing the problems with the questions but it was getting too long and so I gave up.
My feeling is that, had a proper poll been offered, those with negative feelings about Rybka 4 would have been in the majority.
My own feelings are that there is strong enough evidence for a civil court to rule that Rybka 1 is a clone. If it is, then some of Rajlich's statements are less than totally truthful. As those statements have been made since Rybka 3 was released, then Rajlich's comments and values may be untrustworthy and the onus should therefore be on him to provide evidence from an impartial expert that Rybka 3 and 4 are clean. Until he does that, his programs should be banned.
Fruit was eventually released as an OPEN GPL by Fabien
R1 commercial was released as a commercial product and the GPL CLOSED
its possible that the emergence of IPPO is a form of protest of R1's closing the GPL and an effort to REOPEN the GPL( by those protesting its closing) given the likely Fruit connection
in effect bringing the code ..full circle back to an open GPL state
just one theory in many i guess
one thing i have always personally believed however is that the Great Derivatives Debate(GDB) should start at Fruit and carry to IPPO and family and not begin just at IPPO
i know many disagree
Regards
Steve
There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty out there. Hyatt does not appear to like intellectual dishonesty. He seems to have the patience of a saint.
Graham Banks wrote:Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Graham Banks wrote:Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Graham Banks wrote:Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.
Good Call Graham
actually i am quite surprised by the voting
pretty close
i would have thought the second option would be winning going away
i guess if this vote were held on one of the commercial sites the second one would be far in the lead
if held in the OPEN forum the first option would be in the lead
but here..on the CCC...we have a split decision
showing once again that the place for FAIR AND BALANCED CC information is the
CCC Regards
Steve
Somewhat Startled Regards
Steve
The poll questions are very bad, Steve. As a consequence, it is not clear what people have voted for.
My feeling is that, had a proper poll been offered, those with negative feelings about Rybka 4 would have been in the majority.
My own feelings are that there is strong enough evidence for a civil court to rule that Rybka 1 is a clone. If it is, then some of Rajlich's statements are less than totally truthful. As those statements have been made since Rybka 3 was released, then Rajlich's comments and values may be untrustworthy and the onus should therefore be on him to provide evidence from an impartial expert that Rybka 3 and 4 are clean. Until he does that, his programs should be banned.
I do not think that there is a strong enough evidence to rule that rybka1 is a clone.
Some facts:
Rybka1 has clearly different evaluation then fruit.
Fruit has knowledge that rybka1 does not have about endgame(and Rybka1 does not know simple endgames)
The evaluation is not the same and even the people who claim that rybka1 is derived from fruit admit that the evaluation weight are different
in almost every factor.
The similiar parts can be considered as using ideas from fruit.
M ANSARI wrote:Where do you get that information? Most of the talk of Rybka having anything to do with Fruit was regarding Rybka 1 beta. Since Rybka 3 has been disassembled and its guts are out for everyone to see, I have not heard that it has anything to do with Fruit. I would guess Rybka 4 is even more of a change. If you are posting this to try to get rally support for one of the recent Rybka 3 clones to get treated as an original engine ... good luck with that.
If it was in Rybka 1, why wouldn't it be in later Rybkas? Vas certainly rewrote the eval and most likely most/all of the search, but other things (move ordering, UCI parser) are likely unchanged.
Interesting how that argument is extremely applicable to the Ippo issue. Even if (big if) Ippolit contained Rybka code in the beginning, it is all gone by now. So by your standards, IvanHoe, Houdini, Fire, etc are completely legal.
Peter
Don't you just love it when the Rybka supporters get all outraged when you point out that, basically,
1)Fruit has clearly endgame knowledge that rybka1 does not have
2)The evaluation weight in rybka1 are different than the evaluation weights in Fruit so it is not a case when Rybka has the same evaluation except translating fruit to bitboards.
3)Note that I am not Rybka supporter now and I think that both Rybka and one of the Ippolit derivatives(in case that the authors of it ask for it) should be allowed now because I saw no proof that Ippolit is based on Rybka and I think that people are innocent if they are not proved to be quilty.
